Re: New package for Sweden: package-header.el - was Re: Interacting with minibuffer

[Emanuel Berg]

Jean Louis wrote:

>> But these
>> 
>>   https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-packs/caps-back.el
> Cannot be installed, lacks file header

Maybe you got a cached version?

Try again:

  https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/caps-back.el

>>   https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-packs/isbn-verify.el
> Done
>
>>   https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-packs/issn-verify.el
> Done
>
>>   https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-packs/iterate-files.el
> Done
>
>>   https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-packs/moggle.el
> Done
>
>>   https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-packs/wrap-search.el
> Done
>
>>   https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-packs/xsel.el
> Done
>
> Keywords are often not proper in those.

Examples?

> In all your packages license is not properly referenced,
> label GPL3+ is not enough as label is not a license.
> You have to give more proper copyright notice. Example is in
> C-h C-c search for words "How to apply" but minimum I think,
> would be to provide a link to the license. Best would be to
> provide license along with the software especially if it is
> multie file package. Otherwise follow the guideline.
> There are people without Internet, GPL3+ as label means
> little. Benefiting people is best when you tell them:
>
>             How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
>
> If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the
> greatest possible use to the public, the best way to achieve
> this is to make it free software which everyone can
> redistribute and change under these terms.
>
> To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is
> safest to attach them to the start of each source file to
> most effectively state the exclusion of warranty; and each
> file should have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer
> to where the full notice is found.
>
>     <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
>     Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>
>
>     This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
>     it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>     the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
>     (at your option) any later version.
>
>     This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>     but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>     MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>     GNU General Public License for more details.
>
>     You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>     along with this program.  If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

If that is considered optional I think I'll stick with GPL3+,
everyone in the computer world understands that, like TCP or
HTTP or whatever that isn't explained or even expanded.

> Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and
> paper mail.

E-mail I do have! Paper mail - optional as well? Ha.

> If the program does terminal interaction, make it output
> a short notice like this when it starts in an interactive
> mode:
>
>     <program>  Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>
>     This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
>     This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
>     under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
>
> You may look into so many other Emacs packages.

Again, if that's optional I don't really care about that.

>> https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/
>> https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/gnus/
>> https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/ide/
>> https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/w3m/
>
> Good.
>
> Not all files need to be "Emacs packages" in the sense they
> can be installed, they may be programs.

Yeah, but how do you identify those who should be?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal